Emet m'Tsiyon

Sunday, August 30, 2009

The repugnant Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu popped into town with his coconspirators, jimmuh carter and Mary Robinson, as part of a know-nothing gang of so-called Elders. Interviewed by Akiva Eldar of HaArets, Tutu came up with an old staple of pro-Arab propaganda, the Arabs [now called "palestinians"] are paying for Nazi Germany's crimes against Jews. This lie was a staple of anti-Israel propaganda among the British and American Establishments going back to the years after the Holocaust. However, it did become known in those days that Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni], the chief leader of the palestinian Arabs and British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem, played a direct role in the Holocaust. This was known to the editors of the weekly Nation magazine, among others, although today's editors at the Nation seem not to know it or to not understand its moral implications. Likewise, Tutu seems unaware of the age-old oppression of Jews in lands ruled by Arabs which goes on even now in Yemen, for instance. So Tutu is either a liar or an ignoramus, or maybe something of both.

The photo below shows the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini [Husayni] together with Heinrich Himmler, commander of the Nazi SS.

What is equally dangerous is the HaArets journalist, Akiva Eldar, who feeds Tutu soft questions, and does not challenge his obviously false answers. Eldar plays a funny role, by the way. I used to read his articles in HaArets fairly often. He always seemed to know what the Washington administration was thinking, whether the president was Reagan or Bush I or Clinton or Bush II. So it seems that he was serving as a channel for US govt viewpoints in the Israeli press, and as an advocate for US viewpoints, claims, policies, etc. He deserved to be paid for those services, and if the US embassy in Tel Aviv did not reward for his services, then he was grossly underpaid. Of course, I have no proof that he was ever rewarded by the USG for services rendered. But his regular journalistic conduct is suggestive.

Now, there was a great deal of Arab-Nazi collaboration, and indeed of mutual influence. Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, spent most of the war years in Nazi-fascist territory in Europe and collaborated directly in the Holocaust. Readers may note on our blog roll, Bibliotheque Proche Orientale. This site holds a great many documents and photographs in both English and French mainly on Arab-Nazi collaboration. A new book by Matthias Kunzel has a good deal of information on the Nazi-Arab relationship and influences. There are several other books too that I will look up and add to this post. Meanwhile, here are some of Tutu's foolish remarks. Perhaps he is used as a British spokesman to say things that a white Britisher could not get away with saying.

TheNobel Prize laureate spoke to Haaretz in Jerusalem as the organization The Elders concluded its tour of Israel and the West Bank. He said the West was consumed with guilt and regret toward Israel because of the the Holocaust, "as it should be." "But who pays the penance? The penance is being paid by the Arabs, by the Palestinians." [HaArets, 8-29-2009]

Note that Tutu tries to be disarming and appear as not a Judeophobe. He said the West was consumed with guilt and regret toward Israel because of theHolocaust as it should be. [Eldar's paraphrase of Tutu]. So the West should feel guilty about the Holocaust. I believe that many Western govts do not feel guilty about it, although they should. Perhaps part of the reason for the lack of a sense of guilt is the kind of propaganda that Tutu speaks which is intended to subtly undermine any sense that the Jews are moral, that Jews have rights, that Jews can be decent human beings if they adopt the UK anti-Israel policy. It is also meant to totally distort real history. Real history also includes more than a thousand years of Arab-Muslim oppression, exploitation, humiliation, persecution of Jews.

However, there is a great deal that has been published on Arab-Nazi collaboration as well as on traditional Arab-Muslim oppression of Jews. If Tutu does not know about this then he is an ignoramus whose opinion on Arab-Israeli matters is worthless. If Tutu knows but pretends not to know and utters his falsehoods anyway, then he is a liar. Either way, he does not deserve to be taken seriously. This also should apply to jimmy carter and mary robinson. By the way, how do they explain the photo of the Mufti with Himmler above, personally inscribed to Husseini by Himmler?? They are all loathesome.

Here are some sources of info. The list will be expanded.Bibliotheque Proche-Orientale [in both English & French; ici]. This site includes many photos and several videos in English.On Harry's Place by Raziq, "Hasan el-Banna: Brotherhood, Jihad and Nazism " [here]On the Think Israel site [here]On the Point of No Return site [here & here & here]Matthias Kuentzel on "Jew Hatred and Jihad" [here]; another article by Kuentzel [here] Mitchell, Richard Paul: The Society of the Muslim Brothers, Princeton 1959, London 1969.

Monday, August 24, 2009

The Scandalous Sanctimonious Sinister Swedish Socialist Blood Libel

UPDATINGS 8-25-2009 & 2-1-2010 at bottom

The big scandal behind the agitprop blood libel article in the Swedish pro-government rag, the tabloid yellow journal Aftonbladet, is that the government of Sweden, a country so often seen as "progressive," "enlightened," tolerant, caring blah blah blah, is promoting primitive Judeophobia based on medieval Judeophobic themes. What else but a blood libel can we call a mish mash of claims that Israeli soldiers took the body parts of Arab young men whom they had killed because there was a shortage of organ donors coming forward about 1992, when Olmert was health minister by the way? The author of the recent article in Aftonbladet, Bostrom, heard claims from an Arab family back then without any proof. Simply a lurid tale based on supposition and what Bostrom and other Swedish progressives, apparently, wanted to believe. The claim did not even come from the PLO's spokespersons, who are not shy about making up atrocity stories to smear Israel with. The way in which Aftonbladet published the article also raises questions about the Swedes' intent. The offending article was illustrated with photos of very religious Jews in their characteristic black garb, although no connection was demonstrated to Israeli soldiers allegedly killing Arabs for their body parts back in 1992.

Now Bostrom first wrote up these body parts claims in a "book" that he wrote in 2001. That book necessarily missed the recent arrest of a Jew from New York supposedly on charges of trading in body parts, although murder was not mentioned and the man has not been indicted. Bostrom "updated" his tale so to speak in his recent article by adding this recent arrest to the story of Israeli soldiers back in 1992, although no link between the man and murderers for the sake of body parts in Israel was mentioned by the American press coverage. Needless to say, the man from New York has not been convicted for any crime connected with body parts. What is scandalous in the Bostrom/body parts affair is that the Swedish foreign ministry subsidized publication of Bostrom's book. Hence, the Kingdom of Sweden pays to promote Judeophobic blood libels medieval in nature.

Yesterday, the foreign ministry [of Sweden] refused to respond to the publication in Ma`ariv that the ministry helped to finance Bostrom's book, Inshallah. The author himself said yesterday that he "don't really know why the name of the Swedish foreign ministry appears" [in the book] [Ma`ariv, 24 August 2009; in Hebrew see here]

Since the Swedish govt paid to promote these libels, it is not surprising that Carl Bildt, Swedish foreign minister, not only refused to condemn the blood libel published in Aftonbladet but his ministry scolded the Swedish ambassador to Israel who had indeed criticized the article strongly and removed her statement from the embassy's website. It seems that Bildt did not and does not want to condemn notions, such as the blood libel, that his own ministry helped to promote.

Instead Bildt and other prominent Swedes have raised claims about "freedom of speech." This claim is hypocritical on Bildt's part and that of his ministry. For instance, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman pointed out that the Swedish foreign minister a few years ago, a woman, had strongly condemned the Muhammad cartoons which were not published in Sweden but in Denmark. So if a condemnation would violate the free speech/free press rights of the Swedish paper, then didn't the condemnation of the Muhammad cartoons violate the free speech/free press rights of the Danish newspaper and the Danish cartoonists?? Furthermore, Bildt himself coordinated a campaign to shut down Swedish web sites that featured the Muhammad cartoons [mentioned in an article on Ma`ariv].

On the other hand, much more substantial allegations of killing people for organ snatching were made by Carla del Ponte, the prosecutor of the Hague Court for war crimes in former Yugoslavia. Carla del Ponte, a respected Italian-Swiss jurist, can be taken more seriously than a journalist who is a feverish political partisan. However, del Ponte's allegations were made against Muslims, against Kossovo Albanians. They are much better grounded than Bostrom's hate effusions. His writings on the matter show the frenzied imagination of a bigot working overtime. But Aftonbladet and Carl Bildt have not shown much interest, if any, in the well grounded accounts of organ trafficking and murders for body parts in Kossovo by Muslims. Moreover, I am not aware that the Swedish foreign ministry has been excessively disturbed by the refusal by the Sudan to extradite for prosecution the Sudanese Arab Muslim tyrant, Omar Bashir, who is subject to an international arrest warrant for genocide issued by the International Criminal Court. After all, Sweden has a pro-Muslim policy, not a pro-human rights policy, although the Swedish social democrats put on a show that what motivates them is human rights, civil liberties, and the like.

Of course, we should quote from the original article, albeit in the HaArets translation, to get the flavor of its devotion to facts and real evidence:

"'Our sons are used as involuntary organ donors,' relatives of Khaled from Nablus said to me, as did the mother of Raed from Jenin as well as the uncles of Machmod and Nafes from Gaza, who all had disappeared for a few days and returned by night, dead and autopsied," writes author Donald Boström in his report.. . . .Boström also cites an incident of alleged organ snatching from 1992, during the time of the first Palestinian intifada. He says that the IDF seized a young man known for throwing stones at Israeli troops in the Nablus area, who was shot in the chest, both legs, and the stomach before being taken to a military helicopter which transported him to "a place unknown to his loved ones".

Five nights later, Boström says, the young man's body was returned, wrapped in green hospital sheets.

"The sharp sounds from the shovels were mixed with the occasional laughter from the soldiers who were joking with each other, waiting to go home. When Bilal was put into his grave, his chest was revealed and suddenly it became clear to the present what abuse he had been put through. Bilal was far from the only one who was buried cut-up from his stomach to his chin and the speculations about the reason why had already started," he writes. [HaArets, originally published 8-19-2009]

This is quite dramatic, indeed lurid. So Bostrom has a talent for something. Eyewitness testimonies from interested parties who were not exactly eyewitnesses and provide unlikely details. Why was the body returned at all if such a crime had been committed?? Wouldn't the perpetrators have wanted to conceal the crime? Why "green hospital sheets"? Wouldn't the hospital sheets indicate that the something might have been done to the body in a hospital, whereas criminals usually want to conceal the evidence?

Another Swedish newspaper explains why the article is suspect:

...the liberal Sydsvenskan - southern Sweden's major daily - had harsh criticism for the rival paper, running an opinion piece under the headline "Antisemitbladet" (a play on the name Aftonbladet).

"We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot without having been provided with any proven connection whatsoever," writes leading columnist Mats Skogkär of Sydsvenskan.

"Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the Jews] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel." [HaArets, ibid.]

Indeed.- - - - - - - - - - - -UPDATING 8-25-2009 Family of man killed in 1992 denies telling Swedish reporter that the body parts were taken [here].Comments on a Kultur blood libel by Petra Marquardt-Bigman. She refers to Iranian and Turkish films with similar themes [here].Corriere della Sera's summary [qui] with quotes from an Israeli petition to boycott the Swedish firm Ikea and from HaArets criticizing Foreign Minister Lieberman for supposedly making too much of the incident [as if subsidies by the Swedish foreign ministry for publishing such blood libels were a trivial matter]- - - - - - - - - - - -

It should be noted that there never were many Jews in Sweden and Jews were not allowed to live there permanently and legally until the reign of King Gustav III [1771-92]. A more liberal law, a royal decree, allowed Jews to live in several cities in Sweden and become Swedish nationals [1838] but this decree was modified by popular Judeophobic demand. So even today, most Swedes have never met more than a few Jews if any. The basis of Swedish Judeophobia [we know that there are exceptions] lies in the heritage of the Lutheran church which from its beginnings in Germany held views of Jews more hostile than those of the Roman Catholic church.

Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Such lies as propagated by Donald Bostrom, by Aftonbladet, and by the Swedish foreign ministry are an obstacle to peace.- - - - - - - - - - - -UPDATING February 1, 2010 A comprehensive account of the Aftonbladet scandal by a Swedish historian [here], published by the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Semi-Official German Spokesman Wants to Promote the Nazi-like Hamas; His Office Is Near the Nazi Mufti's Former Property

UPDATING 8-21-2009 PHOTOS ADDED&8-2-2011

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The Shimon haTsadiq area of Jerusalem has been much in the news lately. Here is a German connection to the neighborhood besides the link to Hitler's Arab helper, Haj Amin el-Husseini.

Very close to the Tomb of Simon the Just, an ancient Jewish sage, and the former Shepherd's Hotel, a plot of real estate formerly owned by Haj Amin el-Husseini, who belonged to a wealthy Jerusalem Arab family that enjoyed a privileged status in the Ottoman imperial governing class, we can find, if we go off Mt Scopus Road downhill towards the Nahal Qidron [the Qidron seasonal watercourse], theJerusalem offices of the German-government-linked Friedrich Ebert Stiftung [foundation]. The Germans conduct business in a large mansion, not noticed from the road, which is on about the same level as the tiny homes in the old Jewish quarter of Shimon haTsadiq, named after Simon the Just, above and adjacent to his presumed tomb, which is in a cave below a cliff further down the hillside towards the Qidron. While Transjordan, later called Jordan, ruled this part of Jerusalem, Jews could not pray at Simon's Tomb which had for centuries been a focus of Jewish pilgrimage, especially on the holiday of Lag b'Omer in the spring. According to the 1949 Rhodes armistice agreement, Jews were supposed to have access to Jewish holy places under Jordanian [in 1949, this was still Transjordanian] control. In fact, Jews did not have access to any of the Jewish holy places under Jordanian control, neither in Hebron, nor in Bethlehem, nor in Jerusalem. However, as far as Arabs and Western powers are concerned, agreements with Jews do not have to be honored. As President Obama has demonstrated by arrogantly denying even the existence of the agreement on settlement building between the United States, represented by President Bush, and Israel, represented by PM Sharon.

The Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, named after a German socialist leader of the 1920s, is German-government connected and partly funded by it. It takes a very pro-Arab line in the conflict with Israel. Meanwhile, the Germans deploy another foundation, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, which is more or less pro-Israel and cooperates with such Israeli bodies as the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs which publishes studies of current issues in and relating to Israel, usually quite reliable. So the Germans quite cleverly play on both sides of the street, both sides of the conflict. The Ebert Stiftung is very pro-Arab while the Adenauer Stiftung, named after the first non-Nazi leader of West Germany [the Federal Republic] after WW2 and the Holocaust, is somewhat pro-Israel. Perhaps the Adenauer operatives would be more pro-Israel if good manners and bon ton in the EU allowed that.

This is a directional sign pointing to the Ebert Stiftung offices up the street and to the right side of the street [on the downhill slope]. The building in the background behind the trees was once the residence of the wealthy Nashashibi Arab family. Opposite, that is behind the back of the photographer, is the Jewish quarter named after Simon the Just, Shim`on haTsadiq שמעון הצדיק. Photos of that quarter will appear in another blogpost. This street location is where the convoy of doctors and nurses going to Hadassah Hospital was ambushed in April 1948. More than 70 Jewish medical staff were massacred here on that occasion. British troops at the scene refused to intervene to stop the slaughter.

The Ebert Stiftung not only supports the PLO and its Palestinian Authority offshoot but has now come out for Hamas. Hamas openly calls for the mass murder of Jews, which Hitler never did. Hitler only supplied reasons for mass murdering Jews, leaving it to his listeners' imaginations to take the next logical step, although Hitler did warn/threaten on a couple of occasions that another world war in Europe would lead to the extermination of the Jews. He was of course also blaming the future war on the Jews, the main victims of that war, while exculpating Germany and himself. Just as the New York Times and other mouthpieces for American policy do today. As to Friedrich Ebert, he, like Hitler, called himself a socialist. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party [National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei], while Ebert was a social democrat. Ebert's party's name was not quite as impressive as was Hitler's party name. Hitler's party was not only socialist but a party of the workers, maybe like those British and Canadian trade unions that have called for boycotting Israel. Anyhow, what was wrong with the German National Socialists? They were socialists, weren't they?

This is the entrance gate to the Ebert foundation offices. Steps going down to the building where the offices are located. The photo faces south.

Michael Bröning (director of the East Jerusalem office of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung) is eager to bring the Hamas, Arab National Socialists from the point of view of their chosen enemy, the Jews, and their blood thirst regarding the Jews, into the "peace process." Like peace of course, the word socialist can have many meanings, one thing and its opposite. Bröning

cites the group’s [Hamas'] recent downplaying of the relevance of its own charter as a telltale sign that Hamas is turning around or even “growing up.” To be sure, the rhetoric of Hamas leaders has visibly changed in public statements. But in focusing on these statements alone, Bröning misses the real point: Hamas’s words have changed, but their actions have not. Hamas cannot be judged on the basis of its choice of vocabulary alone. Neither the relevance of each and every part of the Hamas charter (which Hamas leaders have expressly refused to revoke or update) nor the public statements of its leaders deserve as much weight as what the group actually does in judging whether or not it has truly evolved. The approach of solely examining what the group says, rather than what the group does—the approach upon which Bröning has relied—dangerously disregards Hamas’s actions on the ground. [Matthew Levitt, in a critique of Bröning here]

This makes sense, especially since Bröning does not quote the bloodthirsty passages from the Hamas Charter in his own article on the website of the old tribune of the US foreign policy establishment, Foreign Affairs. He talks about the charter but does not quote it. Rather coy of Bröning, n'est-ce pas? Does he feel he must hide something

The Charter blames the Jews and Israel for various 20th century wars and other ills, much in the spirit of the Judeophobic forgery/plagiarism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Indeed, the charter refers explicitly and approvingly to the Protocols. This alone places Hamas in the Judeophobic camp of the German National Socialists whose rhetoric was similar. Hamas goes further however. Article 7 of the Charter quotes a medieval Muslim hadith to the effect that, at Judgement Day, the Muslims will kill the Jews, who will hide behind rocks and trees. The rocks and trees in turn will call out. O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him.

This is clear incitement to murder Jews en masse. The German Nazis never were so explicit in public. Here we have a group that is more explicit, franker, more candid than the Nazis. They say it openly and they practice the principle when they can, as often as they can. And they express disappointment when they do not succeed. Of course, some may say that the mass murder of Jews is only for Judgement Day. But as Matthew Levitt says, this approach "disregards Hamas’s actions on the ground." They have murdered Jews en masse in the past, albeit in relatively small numbers compared to the Sunni Muslim slaughter of Shi`i Muslims in Iraq. But the small numbers were due to military conditions on the ground in Israel that have limited Hamas' numerical success. Nevertheless, the slaughter of hundreds at a time, as in Iraq, of thousands in a day as in Nazi German death camps, remains the Hamas' gold standard, as it were, its true avowed and unabashed goal.

May we compare Hamas to another Sunni Muslim ally of Germany? The Ottoman Empire massacred an estimated 1 1/2 million Armenians during WW One [1914-1918] and probably about one-half million from 1880 up to WW One [1914]. This is the most fitting comparison or benchmark for measuring Hamas' true aims, immoral capacities, and proclivities. During the Armenian Genocide [1914-1918], the Ottoman state, in which Palestinian Arabs held high posts, was supported --in the genocide too-- by the German Empire [the Second Reich] and by the Germanic Austrian Habsburg Empire. Even if the history were not as it is, should the Jews have to "coexist" [even if possible] with a body that openly declares that mass murder of Jews is its religious and political objective, in accord with medieval Muslim prejudices, passions and hates???

To be sure, Bröning makes light of the Charter. Well, then there is the constant hate agitation and indoctrination performed by Hamas in Gaza's Hamas-run schools, mosques, "university," TV, radio, press, etc. As to the Charter, Bröning pretends that it no longer has meaning for Hamas. Perhaps just as German politicians in 1933 argued that Mein Kampf and all the National Socialist prejudices, hates, and passions, no longer had meaning for Hitler and his followers. Avoiding mention of the Charter's call to genocide, Bröning writes that those who reject Hamas participation in the "peace process":

bolster their argument by referring to the Hamas charter, the group's 1988 founding manifesto, which outlines a militant doctrine aimed at "liberating the land of Palestine" by force and invokes such anti-Semitic tracts as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
However, such critics fail to grasp the transformation currently taking place within Hamas. Today, the charter has ceased to play a significant role in the group's ideology. As early as 1990, Hamas began to distance itself from the document, which has since fallen into neglect. Although Hamas has not officially renounced the charter, no references to it can be found in any of the group's recent statements. Moreover, Hamas leaders, such as Mahmoud Ahmad al-Ramahi, the secretary-general of the Palestinian Legislative Council, have recently begun downplaying the charter's relevance by clarifying that "it should not be confused with the Holy Koran."

Maybe al-Ramahi is a true moderate. Or maybe he and other Hamas leaders are downplaying or concealing their bloody goals of conquest and mass murder, like Hitler. Maybe Comrade Bröning --we can call him Comrade since he is a social democrat-- is being coy. He calls Hamas' doctrine "militant," not terrorist, mass murderous, genocidal. Is Bröning being naive? Is he ignorant? Did Article 7 escape his attention? Hence, Bröning misrepresents even what the Charter says and stands for. This is aside from the issue of whether the Charter no longer guides Hamas' action.
Maybe Bröning does not know that the Nazis did not merely look on passively as the French fought over policy towards Hitler's territorial demands. They actively cultivated the French publicin order tolull it into complacency, just as the Hamas in the future might issue a reassuring declaration to the Jews of Israel. For the purpose of lulling the French, Nazi Germany initiated the Franco-German Declaration of Friendship of 6 December 1938, two months after the disastrous Munich Conference. The war began less than a year later at the culmination of the pre-World War 2 "peace process."

The Hamas is more frankly genocidal than Hitler and his Nazis ever were. And now, Western politicians and policymakers and diplomats, like Bröning, want to wash up the Hamas' filthy face and make it presentable in decent Western company. But there is no reason for Jews to believe in the decency of "decent Western company" given the EU record of succoring Arab genocidists, even those who murder their Christian brothers in the Arab domain. We ought to also bear in mind Western behavior in the pre-WW2, pre-Holocaust period. Can we now deny or refuse to believe that Western Europe is coming back to its old self as far as Jews are concerned?
- - - - - - - - -Michael Bröning's article here.Hamas Charter here.Analysis of the Hamas Charter here.Matthew Levitt's analysis of Bröning's piece here.On the Franco-German Friendship Declaration of 6 December 1938, see:Wolfgang Geiger, "La Declaration Franco-Allemande du 6 decembre 1938; Un Evenement sous estime," Les Temps Modernes (Aout-Octobre 1999).8-2-2011 NGO Monitor on German govt funding for the Ebert Stiftung [here]

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Sources of fake "information" that present themselves as ostensibly loyal to lofty ideals are part of a well-developed propaganda-cum-indoctrination machine. A fake outfit, ostensibly devoted to a lofty principle, such as human rights, uses its undeserved image of decency, idealism, truthfulness and impartiality to smear a target, a designated enemy. It doesn't use bullets or guns but words. Yet in the long run, the words are meant to play a military role too. The process entails a fake human rights group or fake "peace group" etc, like Human Rights Watch, drawing up a report falsely accusing Israel of killing civilians in warfare, either intentionally or negligently/carelessly. The report is passed on to the complicit Mainstream Media or --to use a somewhat dated term-- the Establishment media. The various media/press/broadcasting organizations --not all to be sure-- report on the report, perhaps further dramatizing it. A smear, a libel, a slander spreads throughout the world. The target has been effectively smeared. The smear is especially effective among readers or listeners who are weak in their knowledge of history, sociology, political science, comparative religion and so on and so forth, as well as being weak in their ability to carefully read what is written, to discount speculative accounts without well-identified credible witnesses, and so on. That is how Human Rights Watch and similar entities can operate.

A commenter on the Augean Stables site, which was founded precisely to deal with frauds and distortions in the media, sees the link between the media and the fake "NGOs" and groups with ostensibly lofty goals, as follows. He points out part of the strategy of the MSM in promoting false "news":

Denting the credibility of ‘trusted sources’ like HRW is precisely what the MSNM carefully tries to avoid even while pretending balance. It regularly uses apparently neutral sources which are actually deeply committed players to force a covert agenda on the audience as a magician forces a card on a dupe.[Lorenz Gude at Augean Stables 8-14-09]

By the way, Gude goes on to mention the impact of the Internet and intelligent blogs on MSM/Establishment control of the "narrative."

Now an unruly audience gets to point out when the magician is pulling a fast one.

That is probably true but the MSM still have more power than the blogs.

Another trick is to pretend that one is neutral, maybe merely interested in having the law obeyed or that one is opposed to one's own ally and allied with one's enemy. This trick is often used against Israel, with the MSM and State Dept pretending to defend Israel against Arab enemies while the truth is the opposite. The Israeli govt also plays along with this lie, which is another problem.

Academic international relations specialists Walt & Mearsheimer were well regarded in the United States in their profession and specialty. They were also both State Department consultants. The State Dept has almost always been hostile to Israel and Jews since before the rebirth of the State of Israel. However, public opinion in the United States has often been sympathetic to Israel and this sympathy has sometimes thwarted State Dept policies hostile to Israel. It seems that one purpose of Walt & Mearsheimer's notorious book, The Israel Lobby, was to create a hostile atmosphere for Israel in the United States, a hostile body of public opinion in order to replace or counter the body of opinion sympathetic to Israel. In that way, the State Dept would be less restricted by public opinion in what it does to harm Israel. W & M falsely claimed that Israel had controlled even dictated American Middle East policy through the so-called Israel Lobby which is at best a very amorphous body of public opinion, often pulling in different directions.

They went so far as to claim or insinuate that the US-led invasion of Iraq --in which Israel's old nemesis, the UK-- took a major role-- had been dictated or forced on America by Israel. W & M knew that this was a lie. Indeed, Mearsheimer went on at length in an interview on National Public Radio [the US Govt broadcaster; also see here] that when Israeli officials had learned of the US intention to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, they --the Israelis-- had tried to dissuade the Americans from doing this and to convince them [the Americans] that, if they were going to go to war anyway, it would be better to attack Iran than Iraq, since Iran was more dangerous in the Israeli view, with its undisrupted efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, etc. Needless to say, the Israelis did not succeed in convincing the Americans and the invasion of Iraq went ahead. This admission by Mearsheimer, probably inadvertent, did not stop W & M from lying afterwards about Israeli control of US policy. And of course the MSM routinely claim that Israel is a favored ally of US policy whereas, especially under Obama, Israel is a target, an enemy meant to be attacked. While doing their "book," W & M, overlooked the close ties and cozy financial relationships between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, American administrations, the State Dept and -- former State Dept employes who had worked in Saudi Arabia and later got on the Saudi payroll. Charles Freeman, whom Obama had originally wanted to appoint to a highly sensitive intelligence post, was one of these. Of course, W & M were aware of the Saudi-American connection, especially close under the two Bush administrations [Sr & Jr], as described in detail in Craig Unger's book on the House of Saud.

In another example, Pres Obama has been denouncing "special interests" such as insurance companies and big pharmaceutical outfits for being opposed to his so-called health plan. In fact, he is already allied with Big Pharma [see here too] and seems to have the insurance industry on board as well. This is a blatant example of this technique. He denounces the big drug companies, whom he and his advisors knew were disliked and distrusted by the public, in order to win public support for his program. They, the Big Pharma firms, are against Me, against Little Me. Meanwhile, Obama and Big Pharma are allied.

Further, Obama's supporters throw out the label "astroturf" to smear opponents of his plan. Astroturf is a brand name for a kind of imitation grass used in some sports stadiums. The label is meant to say that opponents of his plan do not represent the real "grass roots" but are fake grass, astroturf, organized by the Republican Party or the Big Interests, such as Big Pharma [as insinuated]. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with Obama's health plan.

In tsarist Russia, the government conducted an anti-Jewish campaign in various ways. One way was to finance and encourage a group called the Black Hundreds [tshernotentsy] that blamed the Jews for all of the Russian Empire's troubles and carried out anti-Jewish pogroms. When such pogroms broke out, often instigated and organized by the Black Hundreds, the police often did little or nothing to protect the Jews. They pretended to be helpless before such a "spontaneous" outburst of popular hatred of Jews.

Getting back to "human rights watch," it pretends to objectivity and impartiality. These pretenses have been easily disproven by a number of serious reports in various publications and blogs. Among these, see the Augean Stables blog and --especially-- the NGO Monitor blog, both linked to on our blog roll. Emet m'Tsiyon has considered hrw's tragi-farcical charade several times in the past [see here & ici & aqui & qui ]

HRW ought to be severely discredited due to recent revelations that it sent some of its top officials to Saudi Arabia for fundraising [see here & NGO Monitor & Augean Stables], with three Saudi officials present at meetings [according to an AFP report]. Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia, with its Wahhabi Muslim ideology and legal system, rejects the whole notion of human rights in principle. Likewise discrediting is the fanatically anti-Israel career of top HRW operative Joe Stork, who has not changed his extreme anti-Israel views since he openly identified himself as a "radical leftist" years ago. This too ought to discredit HRW. See Stork's background here.- - - - - - - - -UPDATING link added on 10 Sept 2009David Bernstein on HRW seeking funds in Saudi Arabia, from the Wall Street Journal [published 16 July 2009].- - - - - - - - - - - - -Coming soon: Arabs and State Dept helping to fund the "J Street" lobby outfit, Lies supporting the "peace process" and Obama/State Dept policy.

Friday, August 07, 2009

The Old Synagogue in the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter

The Shim`on haTsadiq and Nahalat Shimon quarters in Jerusalem have been much in the news in the past few weeks. They are quite close to the Shepherd's Hotel plot, formerly owned by the Nazi-collaborationist Haj Amin el-Husseini, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem who spent most of the World War 2 years in Nazi Germany and elsewhere in the Nazi-fascist domain. The names of both these quarters refer to Simon the Just, an ancient Jewish high priest believed to have met Alexander of Macedon during his conquest of Israel from the Persian Empire.

Here is a photo of a memorial dedication inscribed above the door of the synagogue in the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter in Jerusalem adjacent to the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood inhabited by some of the leading Arab families. Poor Jews lived in the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter [also spelled Shimon haTzadik, etc] near wealthy Arabs, including Husseinis and Nashashibis, up to 29 December 1947, when the Jews fled their homes after attacks by Arab irregular forces under the command of the Husseinis through the Arab Higher Committee. George Antonius, the Arab nationalist propagandist, rented his home on a nearby property called Karm al-Mufti [the Mufti's Vineyard], from the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, a collaborator with the Nazis and instigator of the mass murder of Jews.

[click on photo to enlarge]Note in the photo the Hebrew inscription above the arch above the door. It is hard to read the inscription because of the angle of the shot. However, the last word of the inscription --in the lower left corner-- is clear. It is an acronym in Hebrew תנצבה . This stands for a standard Jewish memorial phrase, quite commonly found on gravestones, although here it is used in the dedication of a synagogue in someone's memory.תהי נפשו צרורה בצרור החיים

It means: May his soul be bound up in the bundle of life.

For women, the word נפשו [= his soul] is replaced by נפשה [= her soul]. The acronym remains the same in either case.

Tentatively reading the first line of the inscription, from right to left, I think I seeקידש לה' נדבתConsecrated to the Lord an offering of . . .

This would, I think, have to be followed by the name of the donor and the name of the remembered deceased person. I think I see the name ישעיהו [= Yesha`ayahu = Isaiah]. I think I also see the acronym ז''ל which stands for זכרונו לברכה, meaning "May his memory be for a blessing" [a suitable change is made for a woman]. This acronym ordinarily follows the name of a deceased person. The letters standing for the number of the year on the Hebrew calendar may also be present.

A magen david מגן דוד [= shield of David] is seen below the inscription as part of the arch over the doorway at its crest. Also note five black iron hooks or bent rods around the inscription. Originally there were six such bent rods. Two each on the right and left, and two below. They once held a smooth stone plaque with a secondary memorial inscription carved on it. That is, an inscription in memory of a second person had been placed over the first inscription. This seems to indicate the poverty of these Jews, which we know of in any case. It seems that the community needed money later on and allowed someone to memorialize his departed loved one in return for a contribution or financial support. I saw the secondary inscription on the plaque when I visited the site in 1995. However, by the time that Jews took the synagogue back in the fall of 1998, the overlying plaque had altogether disappeared except for the iron rods or hooks. What provoked the Jewish return was that an Arab living adjacent to the synagogue on the east [about two, three, or four meters away] had begun to destroy the eastern wall of the synagogue in order, apparently, to expand his own home into the small synagogue building, which Arabs had not formerly settled into.

Be that as it may, the photo was taken between the summer of 1995 and the fall of 1998. The change in appearance in that time was that the plaque/secondary inscription --already cracked and partly broken off in 1995, had entirely disappeared. The building was restored to use as a synagogue in the fall of 1998 and is still in use.

This area of Jerusalem came into the news lately because of strenuous objections by the US State Department, the UK Foreign Office, and the European Union to Jews living in or building homes in what they like to call "East Jerusalem," a part of the city whence Jewish inhabitants were driven out during the Israeli War of Independence [1947-1949] by Arab irregular forces and the Arab Legion of the Kingdom of Jordan [then Transjordan]. These foreign powers do not want a Jewish return to a part of a city that has a meaning in history deriving from its role in Jewish history and religion. Jerusalem has also had a Jewish majority population since 1853, if not earlier. In 1853, the whole population of the city lived in the Old City which is considered part of "East Jerusalem." That is, in 1853, Jews were the majority in East Jerusalem.

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Tel Aviv Gay Murders a Provocation for the Sake of False "Peace"

Last night, 1 August 2009, a

black-clad, masked gunman stormed into the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association building and opened fire in a basement room where gay teenagers were holding a weekly support group.. . . Witnesses said the gunman entered the center at around 11 P.M. and opened fire in all directions [HaArets, Internet 2 Aug 2009]The man then holstered his pistol and fled the scene on foot into the busy streets of Tel Aviv, Rosenfeld said. [AP, 2 August 2009]

This murderous shooting was performed by a professional killer. He did not shout slogans or leave any message or any sign of who he was or whom he represented. He did not state a moral or ideological position in regard to homosexuality. He simply came, did his dirty and deadly business and got away. The various witnesses quoted did not mention any ideological, political, moral, or religious message uttered, stated or left behind in written form by the murderer. It appears that the hit man had a job which he did quickly and efficiently. And he got away quickly too. Not being caught was of utmost importance. The crime was executed in a professional manner. It was carefully planned beforehand. How the killer would escape was carefully considered.

The next question is Why. A number of haredi politicians had expressed condemnation of homosexuals and their sexual orientation. Several years ago, a young haredi bought a knife and lightly stabbed 3 participants in a gay parade in Jerusalem. This was the most serious act of anti-gay violence reported by HaArets in its background article for the present attack. The perpetrator in Jerusalem appears to have been a religious fanatic, a hothead, in direct contrast to the murderer who acted last night. Further, in regard to Haredim, their murder rate is low and often those who do the most shouting, who make the most noise, are not at all involved in a crime that seems to result from their agitation. On the other hand, we know that some factions of Haredim readily riot over a number of causes. Recently, we have had Haredi riots in Jerusalem over a public parking lot being kept open on the Sabbath and over a mother from the Toldot Aharon [nearly identical to Neturey Qarta] faction of Haredim being accused and jailed for starving one of her own children. Haredi young men like to riot, it seems, and for many of the same motives that other young men riot: a release of the sexual tension that marks young men, a proof of manhood, a challenge to what they may consider illegitimate authority, etc. Anyhow, how many young men don't like a good fight, especially if there isn't much danger of actually getting killed? Indeed, several years ago Haredi riots took place in Jerusalem over several nights against a planned gay parade. But there is a very great distance between acting out hatred of gays in riots in Jerusalem against the police --or between a hothead's stabbing parade participants-- and sending a trained, professional assassin to Tel Aviv to perform a murder in a club for gay youth. The murderer is most unlikely to have been a Haredi man or to have been sent by any Haredi party or organization.

This conclusion is not based on the official condemnations of the murder by Shas Party spokesmen and officials --which are quoted in the HaArets article linked to here-- but on our knowledge of the past behavior of the Haredi community, and its various and sundry factions, and on our personal acquaintance with many Haredim.

Well, if the deed was not performed by or in behalf of Haredim, then who was behind the crime? Here we fall back on the cui bono principle. This means, who benefitted from the crime or any other act.

The anti-national Israeli journalist, Aluf Benn of HaArets, complained in the NYTimes that Obama was widely perceived as hostile by Israelis.

A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month [June] indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. [Aluf Benn, NYT, 27 July 2009]

In contrast, prime minister Netanyahu is favorably perceived by Israelis.

Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure [by the Obama gang]. . . So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. [Aluf Benn, NYTimes, 7-27-2009]

Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze [Aluf Benn, NYTimes 7-27-2009]

So something had to be done to make Israelis, or at least some Israelis, at least the amorphous so-called "Left," so often ready to demonstrate for all sorts of causes, receptive to the Obama administration's racist demand on Israel to "freeze settlements." This demand is itself an assault on freedom, on a value that the gay movement evokes in behalf of tolerance for itself. Maybe some more thougtful gays did perceive the anti-freedom, anti-human rights, nature of the demand. In particular, the Obama Administration seeks to vitiate the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria or even the parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, even though Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1853, and that means in the Old City, in "east Jerusalem," which in 1853 was the whole city.

Aluf Benn indicates that for Obama's policy to win over any substantial part of the Israeli public, an effort would have to be made to divide the Israelis. This might be done by creating a divisive issue, even a spurious issue. The murders of last night were indeed a divisive issue. The Meretz member of Knesset Nitsan Horovits, with typical lack of thought, described the murder as a "blind attack," a hate crime. Tsipi Livni, the mentally challenged leader of the Kadima Party ranted about "hatred. . . intolerance, incitement and violence." Labor MK, Sheli Yakhimovich, a former radio journalist, thoughtlessly attributed the crime to "ongoing incitement." [quotes from Horowitz, Livni, & Yakhimovich from HaArets, here]. They were all insinuating that Shas was guilty, because the party had indeed opposed granting certain rights to homosexuals, etc. So if the attack was meant as a provocation, it has succeeded. It has divided public opinion and provoked a militant movement and demonstrations against the unknown perpetrators, sometimes identified with Shas:

Within a couple of hours of Saturday night's attack, hundreds of members of the city's gay and lesbian community gathered with placards and candles to protest the killings, while Shas was accused by some of inciting the attack.

"I warned in a column last year that Israel is a place which, on the one hand has liberal laws, but on the other does not attempt to counter homophobia," Danny Zak, a gay activist and journalist, told the Jerusalem Post during the demonstration. "A murder was waiting to happen," Zak added.

"The Shas party has the blood of two innocent kids on their hands," he said. "Shas has blamed gays for earthquakes and diseases. This is incitement, but no one is put on trial for it," he said. [Jerusalem Post, 2 August 2009][also see here]

So the "gay community" now has a cause and an available hate object, Shas, whom to blame --plausibly for some-- for somehow inciting the murders, although the murderer was obviously a trained, coldblooded professional. Many will forget that --as we said above-- those who make the most noise are unlikely to be the ones who actually carried out the murder. But the gay movement and the "Left" will no doubt demonstrate and raise the issue of the murders on all sorts of occasions.

The official condemnations by the prime minister, other ministers, other officials, and particularly Shas officials will most likely fall on deaf ears, at least among the more simple-minded among the gays and among the hotheaded haters of the present government on the "Left." The division among Israelis thus caused will harm the present government and its attempt to stand up to Obama's pressure. The murders are likely to end up benefitting those who hate Netanyahu and want to soften his resistance to the racist, anti-Jewish winds raging in Washington.

About

The world swims in lies. Who doesn't know that? Even the dupes are told there are lies about. We aim to dispel the fog of lies, especially about Israel, like our prophets of old and our poets like Yehudah haLevi.
We feature historic sources, documents, excerpts from the classics, etc.
How shall I render my vows and my bonds, While yet
Zion lieth beneath the fetter of Edom, and I in Arab chains?
The false prophets cry Peace, and there is no peace.
A new post every 2 or 3 days.

About Me

צלום דבורה בת יהודה לייב ז''ל
Dvoyreh bas Yehudah Leyb, Eliyahu's mother. My own photo will have to await more peaceful times.
I have been an observer of
the human comedy, and the human tragedy for many years.